Air Traffic Control Reform: Good for You, Good for the Planet, Bad for the Bureaucrats
By: Iain Murray
05/15/09 1:50 PM EDT
There are few government reforms that would do as much to benefit American consumers, industry and the environment as that of the nation’s air traffic Control system (ATC). It would reduce flight times, fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. Yet it has virtually no chance of getting through Congress. Why?
Our current system dates from the early days of flight. To ensure that pilots could tell where they were going in the days before radar, fire beacons were lit along roads, to be followed by the pilots. Those beacons were replaced first with lights, then with radio beacons and air traffic controllers managing planes traveling along these flight paths. In these days of global positioning systems (GPS), such regulated pathways should be obsolete. All over the world—including neighboring Canada—privatized ATC systems are replacing their versions of the system with GPS-based systems or other advanced technologies.
The benefits of these technological advances should be obvious. Flights are more direct because they do not have to follow prescribed pathways. They use less fuel, take less time and emit fewer greenhouse gases.
For example, the Swedish airline SAS and its partners at Stockholm Airport have introduced "green landings" that involve significant computer interaction between airplane and destination airport at the time of departure. This interaction allows the airport to time the landing to the second, thereby allowing the plane to make a single descent, which saves large amounts of fuel over the traditional landing, which involves descending in stages, often involving throttling up of the airplane's engines. SAS estimates that it can save up to 440 lbs. of fuel and 660lbs. of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on each flight as a result of this more efficient landing technique.
Estimates of the effects of introducing a "next generation" ATC system into the United States suggest that the nation could reduce its dependence on oil by 400,000 barrels per day. That works out to a savings in carbon dioxide emissions of 63 million metric tons annually. At 0.2 tons per person, that amounts to a tenth of the average American's CO2 emissions right off the bat.
ATC reform is a stimulus program in its own right. It should be a no-brainer. Less fuel use and shorter flight times also benefit struggling airlines and time- and money-conscious passengers, providing millions of dollars in economic benefit, even if you don't believe that CO2 emissions are anything to worry about.
So why isn’t it happening? It's the usual case of special interests winning out over the right course of action. The most important reason goes back to the infrastructure erected in the early days of air travel. Almost every congressional district has some sort of air traffic control facility within it, and, because the system is in public ownership, most of these facilities are dilapidated. The sensible thing to do would be to privatize the industry, introduce new technology and close down the obsolete facilities. Instead, what will almost certainly happen is that well-organized (usually unionized) government employees will lobby their congressmen and Senators for tax dollars from the stimulus packages to refurbish their facilities and keep them in their jobs.
Another reason is that airlines that have not upgraded their planes because of their parlous financial state cannot afford to deploy new transponder equipment, even if they wanted to. It would take about $4 billion to outfit the entire U.S. fleet, from the largest jumbo to the smallest two-seater. It might make sense to include the cost of this upgrade in any ATC privatization package. In any event, $4 billion is about half the $7.3 billion in savings from imported oil that would accrue to the economy annually as a result of the reform. And it is still peanuts compared to the huge cost of building the high-speed rail that is touted as an alternative to flight.
Privatization has become a dirty word in Washington for no good reason. If Congress and the Administration really want to reduce fuel use and stimulate the economy, ATC privatization should be at the top of their list. Keeping government employees happy is a bad foundation on which to base policy. In the case of air traffic control, it could guarantee turbulent skies ahead.
Iain Murray is Director of Projects and Analysis and Senior Fellow in Energy, Science and Technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Follow The Examiner
